Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive54

SNIyer1234
Does that editor's name & contributions appear similar to ya'll? GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, and now blocked for evasion.  Maxim (talk)  03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation of stubs
I've created stubs: 1991 IIHF World Championship to 1997 IIHF World Championship. To avoid the continuing confusion, betwee the IIHF World Championship articles & the Men's World Ice Hockey Championships articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Single sentence uncategorised stubs aren't useful. The whole difference between the two types of articles is that when the Championship class level gets too big we split it out to its own page. But for these years that isn't the case yet so a redirect is more appropriate until such a time as it needs to be split out from the other article. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

MOS: Sports season formats, player tenures and season spans
There is a discussion occurring at the Manual of Style talk page concerning date formats for sports seasons and year spans here: Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68. For those of you NHL and other hockey editors who thought this was a settled issue, you may want to chime in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rockies
See my suggestion at here. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, and related to the above discussion as well, maybe we should combine the Scouts/Rockies season templates? There are few seasons to begin with between these two teams, and again it would provide continuity. The Devils would still be separate, of course. Jmj713 (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I have no issue with the reason for adding links too and from previous incarnations. I would not merge different locations into a single navbox. They should definitely be kept separate to avoid the over statement of continuity and to match the fact that we keep them separate in every other instance. If we were to merge them anywhere I would merge them into their main team navbox instead of having a separate season navbox. (and actually that looks like that was how it was until recently when they were removed from the team box in the case of Kansas City) -DJSasso (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Howdy Jmj. We should restore the links to those templates-in-question. Afterall, we have 'relocated' links in the NHL team infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NSPORT Ice Hockey criteria
Please see post at relating to ice hockey player  notability criteria. Please post any comments there. Eldumpo (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

NHL franchise list of seasons Template
It's best we keep the links to pre & post relocation seasons of relocated franchises. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been standard for years that we keep teams separate when they move cities. They have their own navboxes of seasons. Please stop trying to edit war. The links were added by someone boldly and then I reverted. At that point you discuss you don't revert again. You really need to stop trying to edit before discussion or during discussion all the time. And please read WP:BRD. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Intersting folks. I'm in the apparent minority at the 1991 to 1997 IIHF World Championship articles & I'm in the apparent majority concerning this discussion's topic. Yet on both occassions, I'm told I'm wrong. Interesting double standard with got going here. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes because in both instances you aren't following WP:BRD, ie someone makes a bold edit and then someone reverts it. In both cases you then went and reverted again before discussing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was accused of reverting twice at the Templates, which is false. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No I said you reverted again. ie you reverted my revert. Since you clearly won't read BRD or you choose to ignore it. After the initial bold edit (made by someone else). I reverted. At that point a discussion is supposed to occur if someone wants to still make the bold edit. (This would be you.) Instead of creating the discussion and seeing if there was consensus for the bold edit, you went straight to reverting again. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally like the new format better, or at least some method for showing the preceding and succeeding franchise name, when it is the same franchise, just with a different name. Frietjes (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I too, prefer this. It's educational for the less familiar readers. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide sample links to the templates under discussion? I'm not really sure what the issue is. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Minnesota North Stars seasons etc. Basically the issue is we have always kept such templates completely separate from one another, just like we do with team articles as they are a separate distinct subject. Since this would be a departure from the norm I reverted the bold change hoping for a discussion on it since it would put it out of synch with most of our other templates of this nature and our pages etc. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the infoboxes of NHL teams that have been re-located, we keep the linkages to their past & future incarnations. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be perfectly clear, we are discussing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Minnesota_North_Stars_seasons&oldid=520481125 including] or [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Minnesota_North_Stars_seasons&oldid=520576581 not including] a link to the succeeding and/or preceding incarnation of the franchise. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Would it be alright to 're-add' the linkages to the Templates-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, discussions last a couple of days so everyone can get a say. Standard is usually 7. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the 4 editors who've posted: 2 support the links, 1 oposses & 1 is un-decided. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Has this been discussed previously somewhere? It would be preferable to understand the reasons why it is done the way it is before evaluating why to change it. Additionally, is there a reason why the defunct teams include the seasons of all their locations, and the current do not? It appears that MLB, NBA, and NFL list all seasons on the same template regardless of relocation, if that is relevent.18abruce (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who added the links to pre- and post-relocation franchise seasons, because we've had them for the longest time on some templates but not others, so I just made things consistent. I do believe we need them simply for the sake of continuity, which I think adds value. Jmj713 (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Though I can understand the intent to keep the template for a specific team's sojourn in a city limited to information related to a specific period of time, I don't think it is too far of a stretch to include links to the corresponding list of seasons for any immediately preceding or successive seasons, to highlight that the team did have an existence before or after the listed seasons. isaacl (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there's only one editor opposing the links & it's now been 7 days for this discussion. I will be re-adding the links-in-question to the Templates. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I never actually opposed it. Just for the record....I said I wanted a discussion on it. Hope you enjoyed making a big fuss over nothing. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * same to you, since you were the one who forced the discussion. Frietjes (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I forced the discussion because it was a departure from how we have typically handled things and it involves multiple pages. By common convention all such changes should be discussed prior to making the change. Had he not put up a hissy fit, it would have been a quick day or two of people going yup the change should be made or nay the change shouldn't be made. As is how our typical discussions on this page go. The only reason this thread likely even got started was because he wanted to get back at me for reverting him on the prior thread which is his typical mode of operation. Someone objects to me lets go see if I can piss them off by objecting to things they did. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * sounds like you should start a thread at WP:ANI if you feel like there is retaliation. If you check this thread, it involves more than the two of you. Frietjes (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware it involves more than the two of us, did I say otherwise somewhere? I said it was started by him. And an ANI would be useless since he has already had an RfC on him telling him to stop acting as he does but he continues. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was planning on implementing the 'consensus' here, at those templates. However, if doing so, means I'm going to get dragged to ANI? Perhaps somebody else would consider doing the task? A trip to ANI, isn't something I need. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No one would drag you to ANI for implementing a consensus. There clearly is one. Have at it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented the consensus reached, into the 15 templates-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ottawa Senators
A wee little problem at that article, concerning the term revival. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A conflict involving Urban Nerd... how shocking. ChakaKongtalk 02:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

help with templates
The template for IIHF infoboxes does seem to allow for the correct flags in older tournaments. For instance, the 1936 olympic tournament infobox does not appear to allow for germany to be presented with the correct flag, only the current one.18abruce (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you really should provide more information next time, but checking your edit history, I am assuming you want [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ice_hockey_at_the_1936_Winter_Olympics&diff=522856322&oldid=522755255 this]. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you I really appreciate the help18abruce (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Broken template for external links
At Template:ESPN NHL, the code needs to be updated to reflect the new style of urls used by ESPN. Currently they are all broken Cloudz 679 19:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given how few transclusions it has, I wonder if it is even worth while to update it? Does it really add anything that the typical nhl.com, legendsofhockey.net and hockeydb.com links don't already provide?  Should it be fixed, or just deleted? Resolute 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fixed it, however the ID #'s for the players all changed so will have to be updated. I have started updating them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Article ratings request
I placed a request to have a couple articles assessed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Assessment and have yet to see any action. Can someone here please review the request and assess? Hwy43 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rated as B and Start class, respectively. Feel free to re-rank any article, up to B, as you feel appropriate.  As to a potential GA for the current team, I would suggest waiting at least for the end of the season. Right now though, I see two small fixes required and one significant issue.  The image needs to move, as you shouldn't squeeze the lead text with both an infobox and photo.  Also, you've mixed flavours of English.  The article should be in Canadian English, so things like "defensemen" should be changed to "defencemen".  My big concern is that the inaugural season is too-detailed.  For instance, how relevant is the fact that the team hosted a Hockey Hall of Fame exhibit for a couple of nights?  That kind of detail may work for an article on a specific season (which we really don't do for junior teams), but not on an article about the team itself.  The team firsts are definitely relevant - first game, first win, first home game, first mention in the CJHL top 20, etc., but you need to be wary of being too granular.  Especially since the first season will become less and less important as future seasons are played.  You have certainly put GA-like effort into the overall page, however.   Also, I rather wish I had brought a camera to the Wolverines-Canucks game last weekend.  If I had realized you were putting this much effort in, I would have tried to get a good action shot for the article. Resolute 23:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Resolute. Both small fixes resolved. Embarassed I let non-Canadian English slip into the article. Admittedly, I've been feeling the same for the inaugural season. I'll ponder either cleaning it up as the season progresses or overhaul it at the end of the season where all the notable events of the season could be easily determined and summarized in one fell swoop. Reflecting on the HHOF exhibit, it is arguably not relevant. Maybe it would be worthwhile mentioning in a potential "Community involvement" section as it was a fundraising event for minor hockey. Have you seen similar sections on other team articles? On a side, I've been considering doing specific season articles over time, so that historical information can be retained as seasons go on (e.g., who was on the roster on any particular season). I intend to snap some action shots when I have a chance to attend my first game. Looks like my best opportunities are when they visit Sherwood Park in January and February. I see they are in Calgary on November 30 to play the Mustangs if you feel inclined. Hwy43 (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Major-junior team seasons have failed to survive at AFD, so I doubt a Junior A team season would either. I would probably encourage that project to be done through the ice hockey wikia.  And I am not sure if I will be able to make that November 30 game, so can't promise anything there. Resolute 15:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And yes, I would include sections on community involvement. That helps round out the fuller picture of the team's impact within the community. Resolute 15:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That information about AfD outcomes will save me from wasting some time. Perhaps I will explore ice hockey wikia or maintain something in my sandbox to retain season-by-season information for historical research purposes. Do you know of any Junior A team sub articles that exist and have been sustained without deletion? Hwy43 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * None I can think of. Alaney DMighton and myself have probably done the most with junior A of currently active editors. Part of the problem already is that there is too much dependency on the local newspaper andthe AJHL site for the main team article.  Most sub articles would be even less likely to achieve broad coverage. Resolute 00:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * User:‎DMighton might be able to help. He is our resident Junior A expert. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Stanley Cup champion teams
The category was deleted in 2007. I don't recall what it was used for, but it was deleted along with a bunch of unnecessary categories. (See the [CFD]) I would think it is a useful category to add to hockey teams pages, e.g. Kenora Thistles. Can I go ahead and recreate it or are there objections? &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Re-create. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are using it to tag the specific season pages that won then it would be worthwhile. I am not sure if I would tag general team pages. Since a team is only a Stanley Cup champion for a given year, not forever. That said either way I have no objection. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of those old teams don't and won't have a season page. Maybe they will someday. Wouldn't that be Category:Stanley Cup championship season? (Or something like that) The List of Stanley Cup champions page is far more than a simple list, so I was thinking of it as a simple category for teams that have won, under Category:Stanley Cup. We have the Stanley Cup champions cat and that has players in it, so I'm not sure about consistency. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I am not sure, was just a suggestion. For current teams maybe the seasons? And older teams that don't have seasons the team page? But you are right either way is good just something to think about. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Stanley Cup championship seasons is the category for Stanley Cup-winning seasons articles. It was categorized under Category:Stanley Cup Championship Finals, but I moved it up under Category:Stanley Cup. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 19:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Healthy Scratch
It came up recently at a GAR that the use of healthy scratch may be a bit too much of a jargon term. Which got me wondering what to do with the phrase. It is a very common ice hockey expression and much like other common ice hockey expressions it might not make sense to read it if your unfamiliar with it. In the past I have linked to the scratch disam page where the definition is explained, however it isn't long until some well meaning editor "fixes" the disam. While I don't know that a Scratch (ice hockey) page would be warranted, but there is nothing to link to including the list of ice hockey terminology, which forces editors to not link a term unfamiliar to casual readers or add something like (a non-dressing player) after the phrase as an explanation. There are currently over 100 articles that use the phrase and I just wanted to get some options on what, if anything, can be or should be done. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Scratch is common to many sports. I might suggest creating a Scratch (sports). Just a thought. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have linked to the list of hockey terminology article before in GAR reviews. I would think that all we really need to do is add an entry for "scratch" in it, with a source.  Hopefully your reviewer would accept that. Resolute 14:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

History of ice hockey template
I was reading about the early baseball history and noticed a really handy template. We don't have anything quite like that, not even simple XXXX in ice hockey articles. I would really like to see something similar developed by our project, namely have year articles where major events and results and league seasons can be enumerated, all tied with a unified template, allowing for very nice historical overview of the sport's history going back to the 1870s. Jmj713 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I started something like that a long time ago (2007 in ice hockey), but lost interest in it as I started to take more interest in feature writing rather than list generation. I am not sure I would personally put a lot of effort into historical lists, but I do support the general idea of them, and certainly could add some sources. Resolute 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would have to agree. This is a case of be bold. A lot of people would find this really boring to do, so if its something you want I would suggest just being bold and starting to do it. I started to do something similar for the ice hockey portal for "this day in hockey". But I couldn't find many good sources where I could get good on this day info all in one place so eventually got tired of it. That being said if anyone knows of a website that does this day in hockey let me know. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how many times I have thought of doing "this day" lists over on the hockey wikia. 366 articles, one for each date of a year. One for each team, etc.  It is one of those things I could OCD on pretty easily, but at the same time, I also know I'd only get so far then lose interest. It could be a neat side project if we were to go add single entries each time we encountered an interesting fact though. Resolute 14:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is XM radio started doing it every morning...but I am always in my car when they do it so I can't use the facts they use because I forget them by time I get to work. If I could just find a decent page to look at each day to get the ball rolling it wouldn't be too bad. I might just start again by stripping birthdays and deaths from the various general in this year pages that exist. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking on the title format, would it be better to do it by year, or by season? Would people (non-hockey people) be confused by "2012-13 in ice hockey" as opposed to "2012 in ice hockey"?  Resolute 14:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would do it by year because that is how other such pages are done for a variety of subjects. A calendar date has a definite start date and end date. Whereas season have the whole when does it end and the next one start issue that we always have with season pages. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking all those years ago, I believe. However, the result is that every league season is broken in half, as is the World Junior Championship.  I wonder if that leaves things a little too disjointed. Resolute 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well really the point of those pages isn't what happened during a season....but what happened during a specific day in a specific year. The focus isn't on seasons but on specific dates. From that perspective it would be disjointed not to do it by calendar year. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was definitely thinking by calendar year, as the baseball articles are. For our purposes I think a typical article could be constructed with sections such as "Seasons ended"; "Seasons started"; "Championships"; "Tournaments"; "Notable births/death/debuts"; as well as general prose. For example, in the 1940 in ice hockey article (just picking a date at random here), under the "Seasons ended" section we could list or present in a table: "April 6: 1939–40 AHL season"; "April 13: 1939–40 NHL season"; etc., and "Seasons started" would follow suit. "Championships" would list all the notable champions during that year (league, tournament, Olympic, what have you). The "Tournaments" section would be for a list of all the non-league tournaments (including exhibition contests such as the Summit Series) that took place during that year. P.S.: The French Wikipedia has a template like the one we're discussing: fr:Modèle:Palette Chronologie du hockey sur glace. Jmj713 (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead with the template, and was surprised to see 1980 in addition to the above-mentioned 2007, as well as 2005 and 2006. The other blue links currently redirect to "XXXX in sport" articles. Jmj713 (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Hat Trick
There appears to be quite a lot of coverage of this charity game featuring mainly players from the Rangers and the Flyers. I've added a short note about it here, but I think an article could be written. Unfortunately, as yet, I haven't been able to find a boxscore and stuff like that. Jmj713 (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mount Pearl Samurai
Hello, the has been an AfD out on the Mount Pearl Samurai for about a month now with no resolution. Despite the fact that this is a hockey-related AfD, there has been no posting here. The Samurai is an expansion team in the Avalon East Senior League in Newfoundland. I would like to invite people here to participate in the discussion. DMighton (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Australian Junior Ice Hockey League AFD
Hi all, the AFD on the Australian Junior Ice Hockey League has recently been relisted to generate more consensus. If anyone has time please head over and participate in the discussion. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

At a bit of a loss
Hey everyone. I just, for reasons which completely escape me, was looking at this article NHL Ice Dancers. It describes cheerleading at NHL games, and describes the list of cheerleading teams as a 'league'. I have never heard of any sort of competition or anything, so this strikes me as odd. I mean, could we not just get rid of this article, merge stuff back into the team articles where necessary and be done with it? (I am asking for other opinions here, as this article strikes me as one that should be deleted, it is about a league that does not exist....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A google news search, an admittedly quick one, seems to show that there is no such thing as 'NHL Ice Dancers' Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This article and the ones in the "See also" section seem to misuse the term "league", which implies the cheerleaders compete, not act in support of other sporting events. isaacl (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source(http://www.dmoz.org/Sports/Cheerleading/Professional_Sports/NHL/) used to backup the claim that it's a "league" may not be reliable. I support deleting this article. It provides precious little information on the subject anyway, aside from notability questions. ChakaKongtalk 15:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I should Prod it or bring it to AFD, thoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it to AfD. There's a cadre of reflexive anti-prodders, and anything that lists any reference at all (no matter how bogus the reference is when you actually review it) is liable for deprodding.   Ravenswing   19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * at AFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games/Field Hockey
What do the members of this group think of moving Commonwealth Games field hockey articles to just hockey in the name. For one it would be confusing to readers from where hockey is dominant (ie majority of Europe and North America). Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  02:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles began as "hockey" not "field hockey" before a move was debated, are you proposing a move based on something new?18abruce (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I like always having it disambiguated. But having read over the move discussions that were had on the subject I don't think there would be any real confusion since the Commonwealth games are summer games and would never include ice hockey so most people would understand it to be field hockey. Personally I would have them with field hockey but the arguments made in the move discussions were sound and my opinion is just my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In as much as "hockey" means "ice hockey" to me, I prefer to always dab these things as "ice hockey" for the sake of consistency and clarity.  But again, that is just opinion, and there is no strict need to disambiguate Hockey at the Commonwealth Games if that is what consensus feels is appropriate. Resolute 15:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

1959 World Ice Hockey Championships
Looking for some help with the final rankings, or rather an explanation for the order of finish. Canada and the Soviet Union tied for first, Canada is given the Gold by virtue of better goal differential, better goal average, or head-to-head victory over the Soviets. One source, available to me, implies head-to-head, however, that would negate the Czechs finish ahead of the Americans for the Bronze. It appears counter intuitive for the Czechs to be third without an explanation, but I can only guess at what the explanation is, and it really bugs me to leave it that way. If someone has a source that sheds some light on this I would really appreciate it.18abruce (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as Google has been trying to make it harder to search newspaper archives, I found it: . Canada finished ahead of the Soviets on the basis of goal differential.  The Czechs and Americans were tied on goal differential, but Czechoslovakia took the bronze on the next tiebreaker, "goal average".  Given the actual numbers, that must mean the ratio of GF:GA. Resolute 15:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very cool, it really helps adding a brief bit of prose if you the rules aren't left ambiguous. I have been trying to add explanations and prose to all things IIHF gradually, my apologies to all for when I get carried away editorializing (1977 and 1991 for example), or if it appears that I have taken on the appearance of article ownership.18abruce (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move to 2012–13 NHL lockout
Can an administrator move 2012-13 NHL lockout (using a hyphen) to 2012–13 NHL lockout (using an en-dash)? The en-dash version used to redirect to "2012 NHL lockout", and now redirects to the new article name using a hyphen. Can these two be flipped around, so the hyphen version redirects to the article name using an en-dash? isaacl (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. And good god are there a lot of redirects to this article. Resolute 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I guess there's (1) trailing 13 or not; (2) NHL or National Hockey League; (3) hyphen or en-dash (or, because someone created it, two hyphens), for a possible nine to twelve different combinations (twelve if you created every possible alternative with two hyphens, but that seems unnecessary). I suppose the actual article title should include "National Hockey League" rather than "NHL", but I won't ask for the article to be moved again! isaacl (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople
An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Best-on-best
Is their any reason for this article to exist? It does not provide a single reference that even uses the title of the page.18abruce (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive52 for some earlier discussion on this topic. As I mentioned in that thread, I don't believe the subject as described by the title warrants an independent article. isaacl (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)